Replies

Anyone remember that odious attack 42 years ago (1964) on Goldwater's suitability for the Presidency? Seized breathlessly from a biased and manipulated magazine 'survey', the media headline and firestorm was "... 1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to be President!"

Coming from a new magazine, FACT, and published in the Sept/Oct 1964 edition, the headlines disguised a majority of what 'facts' were found by the magazine's editor, Ralph Ginzburg, and a researcher/author, Walter Boronson. From an AMA list of 12k+ psychiatrists, the responses of 2,417 had the 1,189 declaring, without any professional examination, his unfitness. A great many people, from then to now, have regarded this as a violation of professional ethics. Their defense was that they thought the survey was private and informative!

This is an accepted logical fallacy under the term "Appeal to Authority" and is defined by these rules;
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

See any resemblance to this panel of 'historians'?